In deze bijdrage wordt nader ingegaan op het erfrechtelijke ‘willekeur’-begrip. Volgens de minister is het niet toegestaan dat een erflater een legaat maakt dat afhankelijk is van de willekeur van een ander. Wanneer is hiervan sprake en hoe zwaar dient aan dit, door de minister uitgesproken, ’willekeurverbod’ getild te worden? Aan de hand van een korte beschouwing van het bepaaldheidsvereiste, de corrigerende rol die de redelijkheid en billijkheid in ons vermogensrecht kan spelen, een analyse van het Duitse § 2065 I BGB, de al dan niet toelaatbaarheid van de potestatieve voorwaarde en een vergelijking met de schenking, kan naar het oordeel van de auteur worden gesteld dat voor erfrechtelijke willekeur niet gauw gevreesd hoeft te worden. --- This contribution examines the definition of arbitrariness in Dutch succession law. According to the Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands, a testator is not permitted to make a bequest subject to the arbitrariness of a third party. What does arbitrariness mean, and how important is this ’prohibition of arbitrariness’? Based on a review of the determinable terms, the role of equity and fairness in Dutch property law, the German provision § 2065 I BGB, the principle of ’potestatieve voorwaarde’, and through comparison with benefactions, the author suggests that there is hardly any risk of arbitrariness in Dutch succession law.

Dr. Nathalie BauduinNathalie Bauduin is a PhD student at the Centre for Notary Law of Radboud University Nijmegen.

In Denemarken en Nederland is sprake geweest van wetgeving die tot doel had, in het belang van het kind, de gelijkheid van ouders ten opzichte van hun kinderen verder te bevorderen. Voor beide landen werd al tijdens de parlementaire behandeling van de wetsvoorstellen toegezegd dat de wetten binnen een termijn van drie jaar zouden worden geëvalueerd. Inmiddels heeft de evaluatie van de Deense wet op de ouderlijke verantwoordelijkheid ook tot wetswijziging geleid. In dit artikel worden de achtergrond van de Deense wetsevaluatie, de evaluatie zelf en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen behandeld. Daarna wordt kritisch gekeken naar de interactie tussen de wetsevaluatie en de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen. De vragen die hier rijzen, betreffen de doelstellingen van de wetsevaluatie. Wat werd beoogd? Moest de wet zich bewijzen of werd alleen beoogd de eventuele scherpe randjes van de wet af te halen? In hoeverre zijn de bevindingen verwerkt in de daaropvolgende wetswijzigingen? Ten slotte wordt het gezamenlijk ouderschap na evaluatie in perspectief gebracht. --- Recent developments in Danish and Dutch legislation have provided norms which were directed at furthering equality between parents, in the interest of the child. In both countries, it was promised in the course of the parliamentary deliberations that the enacted legislation would be evaluated within a period of three years. The Danish evaluation led to new legislation being enacted. In this article the background for the Danish evaluation, the findings in the evaluation en the resulting legislative changes are deliberated. Subsequently, the interaction between the evaluation and the resulting changes is critically analysed. An essential question concerns the purpose of the evaluation. What was envisaged? That the stated aims were realised? Or just the elimination of sharp edges of the legislation? To what extent were the findings in the evaluation taken into account in the subsequent legislative changes? Finally, joint parenting after evaluation will be brought into perspective.

Dr. Christina G. Jeppesen de BoerChristina Jeppesen de Boer is a lecturer on comparative law at the Molengraaff Institute for Private Law (Utrecht University). She is also part of the Utrecht Centre for European Research into Family law (UCERF).

Legal position of a known donor constitutes an ongoing challenge. Known donors are often willing to play a role in the child’s life. Their wishes range from scarce involvement to aspiring legal parentage. Therefore three persons may wish for parental role. This is not catered for in the current laws allowing only for two legal parents. Several studies show how lesbian mothers and a donor ’devise new definitions of parenthood’ extending ’beyond the existing normative framework’. However, the diversity in the roles of the donors suggests a split of parental rights between three persons rather than three traditional legal parents. In this article I will discuss three jurisdictions (Quebec, Sweden and the Netherlands), allowing co-mother to become legal parent other than by a step-parent adoption. I will examine whether these jurisdictions attempt to accommodate specific needs of lesbian families by splitting up parentage ’package’ between the duo-mothers and the donor.

Prof. mr. Masha Antokolskaia Ph.D.Masha Antokolskaia is professor of Private Law (in particular, Personal Status and Family Law) at the VU University Amsterdam. She is a member of the Commission on European Family Law (CEFL) and a board member of the International Society of Family Law. She is author of a diverse range of monographs and articles written in Dutch, English and Russian. Her main research areas are: European comparative Family Law and Dutch Family Law, with particular regard to the law relating to relationships, parentage and divorce.

This article discusses the possibility spouses have under the Rome III Regulation (EC Regulation 1259/2010) to choose the law applicable to their divorce. It discusses the limits and exceptions of this freedom to choose.

Dr. Thalia KrugerThalia Kruger is professor at the law faculty of the University of Antwerp, where she teaches and researches private international law, international civil procedure and international family law. She is also Honorary Research Associate at the University of Cape Town.